For those of you not familiar with the U.S., that one little notch of black in the Southern part of that big patch of yellow that is most of New England is Rhode Island - the state I live in. That's always the way, isn't it?

Yup, of the six states that make up what is colloquially called New England, four have passed the legislation, two have not - Maine and Rhode Island. Sure, I could always go to Connecticut or Massachusetts (the two states that border Rhode Island), but why can't I just do it here? I live here. Meh. Blech. Whatevs. It's not like I'm even seeing anybody right now much less getting ready to marry, but it still pisses me off.

So the point of the picture is that because first cousins can marry in some states, homosexuals should be able to marry? Seems to be two unrelated points.

Much as I find the image humorous, I have to agree with the above. If it's meant as more than a joke, I'm not seeing the point. Why not compare where gay marriage is allowed vs. where marriage to multiple partners is allowed? It'd have just as much relevance, possibly more given I'm pretty sure marriage to first cousins is something frowned upon for reasons other than religion/"sanctity of marriage."

So the point of the picture is that because first cousins can marry in some states, homosexuals should be able to marry? Seems to be two unrelated points.

Well, for one, I didn't put the presentation together, so I can't speak to the original presenter's ideas. But, in my own opinion, the topics aren't really that unrelated. We're dealing with two situations where American society on average thinks that marriage would be wrong.

But you’re also looking at an instance where at one time the act of marrying someone related so closely was not seen as problematic. Therefore laws were put on the books allowing the act. Nobody has simply taken those laws off the books because removing a law is very difficult in most places. Gay marriage has yet to become the law in most states, as shown. Therefore you are dealing with two different entities. One was acceptable, now is not. The other was not acceptable and slowly becoming so.

But you’re also looking at an instance where at one time the act of marrying someone related so closely was not seen as problematic. Therefore laws were put on the books allowing the act. Nobody has simply taken those laws off the books because removing a law is very difficult in most places. Gay marriage has yet to become the law in most states, as shown. Therefore you are dealing with two different entities. One was acceptable, now is not. The other was not acceptable and slowly becoming so.

You're absolutely right. Like I said, I wasn't the one who put the presentation together, so I can't speak to their intention. I just thought it was interesting and, as Trieste pointed out, amusing.

So in order to make gay marriage legal, they will throw other relationship types under the bus?

I'm curious to know how pointing out in which states it's legal to marry one's cousin as opposed to which states allow gay marriage is 'throwing other relationship types under the bus'? It's there. It's a fact, and it's being pointed to.

One might point to the fact that marriage to one's cousin increases the chances of genetic disease in any offspring, but that chance is lowered by the fact that it's common practice to have blood tests before getting married, nowadays.

One might also point to the fact that if allowing marriage to such a close family member hasn't dissolved the sanctity of marriage, surely allowing two people of the same gender wouldn't do so either.

One might point to several things, and one could infer several meanings from the comparison of the two images. However, when you come down to it, the images are simply that, images. They are information presented without commentary, and anything you take from that image is pretty much the result of your own train of thought regarding that image. That's the wonderful thing about art, sometimes.

It's not, uh, condemning any other type of relationship and it's not doing anything but presenting pure fact.

I'm curious to know how pointing out in which states it's legal to marry one's cousin as opposed to which states allow gay marriage is 'throwing other relationship types under the bus'? It's there. It's a fact, and it's being pointed to.

One might point to the fact that marriage to one's cousin increases the chances of genetic disease in any offspring, but that chance is lowered by the fact that it's common practice to have blood tests before getting married, nowadays.

One might also point to the fact that if allowing marriage to such a close family member hasn't dissolved the sanctity of marriage, surely allowing two people of the same gender wouldn't do so either.

One might point to several things, and one could infer several meanings from the comparison of the two images. However, when you come down to it, the images are simply that, images. They are information presented without commentary, and anything you take from that image is pretty much the result of your own train of thought regarding that image. That's the wonderful thing about art, sometimes.

It's not, uh, condemning any other type of relationship and it's not doing anything but presenting pure fact.

So tell me again how this throws anyone under the bus?

I suppose its just my way of thinking when considering the LGBT movements past actions and political positions. You are right, the images are just that, images. However its pretty clear that the way the images are portrayed is designed for the individual viewer to make their own interpretation of it. That was mine

I interpreted the image as comparing the legal status of two relationships some find immoral. I think the majority of people find the idea of a marriage between first cousins to be very taboo. While I can think of a fair number of famous and personally known gays and lesbians who are married or in domestic partnerships, I don't know any cousins who are married. I think the creator meant to point out the difference between modern mores and what the legal system recognizes.

I interpreted the image as comparing the legal status of two relationships some find immoral. I think the majority of people find the idea of a marriage between first cousins to be very taboo. While I can think of a fair number of famous and personally known gays and lesbians who are married or in domestic partnerships, I don't know any cousins who are married. I think the creator meant to point out the difference between modern mores and what the legal system recognizes.

Personally, I was also amused and will pass this along. Thankies.

Do people really think it is such a taboo for first cousins to marry? Looking at the map I would think it not that big a deal, at least in the south. Personally I think anyone willing to freely marry should be able too. Screw the morality imposed upon us by politicians and the religious. All these so-called taboos are just a tool to ram their beliefs down other peoples throats. I am sure there are still laws someplace outlawing sodomy. Age might be the only exception.

There are laws that state ages at which people are allowed to marry. Unfortunately, they're often lower than you might think. I think a lot of them are still around 14 or so. As far as I know, there's no upper limit, if that's what you meant. But there are definitely lower limits.

There are laws that state ages at which people are allowed to marry. Unfortunately, they're often lower than you might think. I think a lot of them are still around 14 or so. As far as I know, there's no upper limit, if that's what you meant. But there are definitely lower limits.

I meant lower limits, persons too young to be able to make a rational decision or protect themselves from coercion need protections.